User talk:Super7700
Faction symbols The one reason why I preferred to use different colours and objects is because if you used just coins with the same colour, faction symbols become less distinct and difficult to tell from one another. Also, the symbol you chose for the Nabataeans is not very clear itself. Beelim (talk) 02:24, March 10, 2014 (UTC) :: I'm going for quality over variation here, so while the icons you originally chose varied a lot in colour, a number of them were extremely worn or rusted - not the sort of thing you want representing a faction. I've been trying to make them all coins for the sake of uniformity, and I don't agree that they are difficult to tell appart. Given that these icons are only for the Wiki, distinctiveness doesn't matter much anyway. You are right that the Nabataean coin is quite unclear, it was the best quality Nabataean coin I could find. I did just find this coin however http://www.acsearch.info/ext_image.html?id=4821 and although it is actually Roman it looks similar enough and there aren't any markings to clearly distinguish it as non-Nabataean. Super7700 (talk) 03:03, March 10, 2014 (UTC) Egypt and Nubia Africa is done. I will not be uploading it to the Atlas yet because I have not divided the CtW render. Meanwhile, what do you think about the tribute-inducing powers for Slaves and Pottery? *pottery allows you to increase the amount of tribute you receive per turn, being 1 tribute for every strategic resource owned by your allies *each instance of slaves on the map grants 5+n tribute, with n the number of factions you are at war with *Additionally: Exotic fauna - replaced Peacocks. Control African patches with Exotic Fauna to allow creation of mercenary African elephants, control Asian ones to receive Indian elephants. Messages will alert you each turn whenever you gain or lose access to them. Generally I want only 2 patches for Exotic Fauna...I need to figure out how elephants were shipped to Bactria from India. Beelim (talk) 09:18, March 4, 2014 (UTC) *Is the pottery bonus meant to reflect the transportation goods with pottery? That does make sense. However I think by default you should be able to gain income from allied strategic resources, with pottery just boosting this further. *I'm not sure about this one. I guess you are basing this on the idea of enslaving enemies. However this has little to do with the actual regions where slavery is a resource. *Exotic fauna should be different from elephants in my opinion, but I agree with the idea of having to hold the resource to access the elephants. :: Super7700 (talk) 03:15, March 10, 2014 (UTC) :: So what do you propose for slaves? what if the slave market allows for instantaneous generation of slaves? or the ability to purchase slaves without "upgrading" citizens? Beelim (talk) 14:24, March 10, 2014 (UTC) Rares: some thoughts *Pine wood should be retained since pine pitch was one of the major sources of bitumen for Romans. It was just that it was harder to produce, compared to bitumen. *Ivory should not be included. Instead I suggest inserting an "elephant brigade" card somewhere near India. Gaetulia Magna has been given this ability as well since elephants in the area were hunted if not tamed to extinction. *We can replace tea with slaves! I gave some thought about it, and the bonuses seem perfect: wealth from slaves, influence for possession of slaves, as well as the ability to recruit tougher slaves. But we will not call the resource "Slaves" we will call it the "Slave emporion." Also, what do you think about this civil war mechanic? Rebellions and civil wars can take place in territories which have not been fortified to a territorial strength of at least 2 as long as you have not unified all other territories included in the regional grouping. Placing armies in areas which have not been consolidated stops them from rebelling. Example: Maurentania consists of two areas, Gaetulia Magna and Numidia. If Rome captures both territories, it can safely leave them at a territorial strength of 1 unless someone else conquers them. Example: Macedon controls two areas out of Macedonia, being Thessaly and Macedon, but conquers Aetolia while leaving Epirus occupied by another power. Macedon must fortify both Thessaly and Aetolia to level 2 if it wants to keep them without garrisoning them with armies. This means that there are some interesting strategies that can be used. To generate tribute, some areas can be left to riot, and then be attacked again for more tribute, but overall it is better to take control of entire territories because they produce a one-off payment which is far more substantial than what you would obtain from continuously raiding an area. In theory this would be possibly with 2 armies in place - overrun the area, then vacate it the following turn and let it riot. However, the amount of tribute you will get is rather low. *Beelim (talk) 02:33, February 24, 2014 (UTC) ::: Is pine special enough to be a rare resource though? As there is also a bitumen resource I don't see much point in having another resource used for pitch. This is why I prefer the idea of having an exotic tree resource as there is in EB II. Of course there are a number of resource slots so there still may be room for both. ::: Even if we don't have ivory, I still think it would make sense for elephants to appear as a rare resource that would give access to mercenary elephants. This could make quick battles and campaigns more interesting as it would be something new for players to fight for. The nations that historically used elephants extensively could still get them without controlling the resource in quick battles, but they would have to retain certain territories to train them in the campaign. I believe the elephant brigade bonus card could have other uses instead. For instance it could represent the alliance between the Seleucids and Mauryans that secured a large number of elephants for the Seuelcuds, or Pyrrhus' obtaining of War Elephants for his exhibition in Italy. ::: We will call the resource 'Slaves'. Slave markets were everywhere, this rare resource is meant to be for the areas that were major sources of slaves or perhaps sources of more valuable/skilled slaves. ::: I really like your ideas for the rebellion mechanic. I just worry though that it may not be possible, because you can only have one of each faction on the campaign map and it may not be possible to revert a territory back to an unclaimed status. If that is not possible, then perhaps it could work so that if you don't control a whole province and the strength of your territory in that province is less than three (making it a little stricter), that territory will go to the enemy without a fight. If the territory has a slightly higher territory level, or if there is an army present there could be a rebellion scenario where the invader has the support of the natives in the territory. ::: -- Super7700 (talk) 04:01, February 25, 2014 (UTC) ::: By the way, I have revised the rules for Rise of Kings colonies: take a look - http://ronriseofkings.wikia.com/wiki/Atlas/Colonies - Bottom line is that some colonies are easy to discover and others are harder to find. For instance, a Muslim faction invading Africa and Iberia can found Madeira, and keep it as long as Madeira's two ruling provinces in Africa remain under its control. The more colonies discovered by others, the harder it is to find more, so there could be colonial wars. Also, Scotland and Denmark have joined the colony race. ::: MEANWHILE ... ::: I would argue that pine wood was special, as it didn't just produce timber and pitch but food as well, such as pine nuts and pine bark tea. But if you have another idea, let me know. Another possibility is cedar, but the problem is that cedar isn't edible, and there really isn't anything that can be used to explain the "ship-regenerating food tree" that is pine. But I do agree on the slaves. Pine is pretty special, it existed in rare quantities for the Romans but was ample enough in the Alps and northern Europe ::: If you need ivory, maybe we should use the peacock slot, although it'd then mean we'd have massive issues on where to place the new ivory resource. I read somewhere that elephants were common even in the Middle East (see here) but by Roman times it seems that the only place you could get them was northern Africa. Bisons cannot be changed, because we've assigned them to quite a number of territories to the north. We need to get rid of sugar, as well as rubber since they are anachronistic. Maybe you can even remove cotton although I don't know what could replace it. Exotic woods like cedar should be some kind of prestige-enhancing material. ::: It might be possible to render inhabited lands into barbarian ones, given the Spitamenese effect from Alexander the Great, or the nuclear bomb effect from the Cold War CtW. But your idea is also just as good and might work. Perhaps to make things better we could also add a "preferred culture", so that defections occur dependent on culture. If you are a Greek player and attack parts of Hellas, you can expect 1-level territories to defect if invaded. So the Greeks, Numidians, Suebi, and the Celtic powers as well as the Sarmatians, Sabaeans and Nabataeans, Armenians and Parthians all have special regions where people defect to them willingly Beelim (talk) 05:54, February 25, 2014 (UTC) Europa Stats for Europa now complete (for now) with a suggestion for pottery: *Reduce the amount of food produced to 5. *Give it a CtW ability to gain tribute from your allies, with 1 for each strategic resource. Europa has been designed so that it has a fair number of supply centres - 1 per each region, save for Belgica. Beelim (talk) 09:33, February 23, 2014 (UTC) Atlas: Complete We've finally fixed the Atlas! So you now have a map which pretty much spans all of Europe, from the Pillars of Hercules all the way to the Ukraine. All that's left now is to finish it off. I'm interested in the Ivory resource in Civ 5, R2 and other games. Maybe it can have a special ability like, "eliminates part of the cost of recruiting such-and-such elephant unit"? Maybe, "Ramp in wealth cost for this sp of war elephant eliminated"? As you know we have pretty much covered all resources. I'm worried about some of the rares because in K&C only 1 province may have a rare at a time, for instance lead could be mined where silver was present, as was with copper and gold. Maybe lead or tin producing areas need a metal boom card. Beelim (talk) 16:00, February 22, 2014 (UTC) :: You've done a good job with the Atlas, though I still think there is work to be done. The first issue I've noticed is inconsistencies in the naming of territories. While some have their native names, others have Romanised names (eg Nervaea Belgica). While I'm happy with the province names being in latin since the Romans were the ones who divided their empire into provinces, the territory names should all be anglicised or all be in their native names. I'm in favour of the latter as it allows for flexibility whilst still retaining accuracy. The second issue is that there should be more territories, provided that we haven't reached a territory limit that I am unaware of. For instance, Egypt should not be one territory, but a region containing 3 or 4 territories. :: While it is possible to script rare resource bonuses, scripting a cost or ramp change is not possible. My idea is that controlling the elephants resource could give access to mercenary elephants. Something similar could be done for the Molossian Hounds as well. :: Good point about the one resource per territory limit. I will first need to check that to make sure that it is the case. If so, then we'll need to look into what resourcce the territory was best known for producing. If tin and lead are the predominant resource in any territory, then they could just appear in quick battle matches. I was thinking that all rare resources could appear in quick battle, much like what ODA did. :: -- Super7700 (talk) 20:45, February 22, 2014 (UTC) :: Rise of Kings is getting a bunch of dogs - three in fact, but I have homework to tend to. As for the Latinised names one of the problems is that the map you have given me is not perfect, after all not all languages such as those of the Iberian factions are known so we have had no choice but to use the names the Romans provided for them. :: Beelim (talk) 03:06, February 23, 2014 (UTC) :: In the event that the native language is unknown, then yes we can take a few liberties, provided that we don't make it too obviously Latin (eg also using the latin words for north or south) :: -- Super7700 (talk) 03:26, February 23, 2014 (UTC) :: Trying to avoid that but there are lots and lots of name places which are in Latin because many parts of northeastern Europe weren't really charted by anyone until Tacitus - who ironically wrote well after the battle of Actium (they say Tacitus was a 3rd generation Celto-Roman). The only other authority on northern Europe was a Greek traveller named Pytheas ... and we hardly know anything about him or even a single word he wrote. Beelim (talk) 08:19, February 25, 2014 (UTC) :: You're probably sick of me making comparisons to EBII, but I notice that they've managed to give all the northern European territories a native name. The EB I map is outdated so make sure that you check the EBII map I posted somewhere on the wiki. Also, as I mentioned earlier, it would be best if you avoided using latin words in territory names, so for instance "Gaetulia Magna" should just be "Gaetulia". :: -- Super7700 (talk) 08:27, February 25, 2014 (UTC)